Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1959330 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester,. Minn., October 20, 1959 • OSWALD PUBLISHING CO., NEW ULM, MINN. 9181 Minutes of a special meeting of the Common Council of -the City'of Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall on October 20th, 1959. .President Kamm called the meeting to .order at 8:00 o'clock P. M..the following members being present: President Kamm, Aldermen Haas, Hanlon, Morris and Tingley. Absent: Aldermen McGuckin and Witkus. ~ The call of the special meeting was read and President Kamm ordered the same placed on file, the said meeting having been called for the purpose of considering the highway plans for the Miracle Mile area and any other. business the said Common Council may deems proper. President Kamm stated that the Council was going to make a concentrated effort to try to bring this to a conclusion and that we are going to do this by sticking to the issue that is most • controversial, we are not interested in discussing any problems that are outside the area from Donaldson's to-llth Street Southwest and requested that anyone not directly interested in this area not..become involved in the discussion tonight in the interest of expediting the matter ,at hand. He then presented the following outline on the blackboard for the problems to be discussed: Objective: To make a'decision on this issue. Problem Areas to be discussed tonight. .A. Traffic projection figures difference (1) Engineering firm (2) Sate Highway B. Is 2nd Street interchange adequate? (1) City at large (2) Miracle Mile area C. Is 1st Street overpass .1 - necessary 2 - desirable 3 - feasible 4 - financable President Kamm then called on Mr..Pollard of Bartholomew & Associates and Mr. Clayton Swanson of the Minnesota Highway Department to answere these questions. A. Mr, Pollard stated that in traffic projection there was another question involved, the question of traffic assignment. -He said when they came into the picture a number of traffic projections and assignments had been made, they evaluated them and cross checked them and in going over them found no gross argument with the technique but went ahead and got information on new sub -divisions and reasonable estimates from local sources, etc. The primary difference lies in • the choice of population, we got a 10-30% difference than the Highway, but he said a 10-30% differ-. ence was not a gross difference: You can only design the -highway to the unit of a line and the practical point is the ability to carry a number of cars in a certain amount of time. He said there was no argument to the technicalities of the projection. Mr. Swanson said they have no quarrel with the traffic projection figures, he said they had based it on estimated figures to 1975, they did not claim to be that accurate, and they have no quarrel on that point. B. Mr:. -Pollard. Taking the 2nd Street interchange, we feel that from the standpoint of getting traffic through, that this will function for some period of time but we feel there will be a traffic backup and delays of traffic and we feel that the satellite structures for relief are necessary, (as to what point in time is again an area of ability to project the operation'in this area) and a way of introducing security to traffic which would be desirable in this area since as Record .of Official .Proceedings of the Common Council of the City - of Rochester;. Minn., 0ct6ber- 20, 1959 1 • 1 11 • a certain point of Rochester as a whole its principal affect would be seeking to use 2nd Street as their means of getting through this area. He said they felt the present'plans were inadequate from ' a service standpoint, he said it would serve traffic, but not the way it would like to be served. He.outlined in detail plans for an'overpass at 1st Street and 3rd Street and said they were very necessary and desirable. Mr: -Swanson said that 2nd Street is designed for'1975 traffic and they feel it will carry the traffic up to that time, if you had an overpass at 1st and 3rd you would have better service but we are limited as to what we can justify to expenditures and do not feel we can justify the expend- iture at 1st and 3rd. Mr. Richard Towey, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, was present and stated that the Board had discussed this project and would like to bring to the Council that they feel it would be wise to make a decision on this matter quite soon. C. Mr: Pollard (1) Yes, they feel it would be necessary; it would relieve traffic on 2nd Street and - circulate the traffic in this area. (2) It is desireable. (3) It is feasible, we have seen more difficult ones constructed. (4) Can not say one word on this. Mr:Swanson (1) We do not think it is necessary. (2) No, we do not think it desirable at this time. (3) It can be done for a cost, there is nothing you can not do if you pay for the price, We estimate it would cost about $225,000.00 just for bridges, without land costs and we do not have the finances to do it, so do not think it feasible. (4) No, as far as our department is concerned it is not financable. Mr. Kamm then summarized the discussion and said anyone else interested would now be heard. Mr. Eldon Johnson opposed approving the plans as submitted. Mr. Robert Dashow said he owned property along the highway between 6th and 7th and would like tD know what they are going to do so they can make their plans. Mr. C. M. Feldmann representing Miracle Mile, stated that he felt they were more concerned than anyone and pointed out how the overpass would improve traffic conditions and how he felt they would suffer if the plans were adopted as submitted. Mr. Howard Smith urged that the Council take action and approve the plans. Letters from the Rochester Building and Trades Council and Central Labor Union urging that the Council make a decision and approve the plans were each read. Also a letter was read from Mr. Leonard Ekstrand, President of I. 0. I. stating that their Board of Directors had passed a resolution urging the Council to take immediate action settling the Miracle Mile Highway problem in the interest of all Rochester citizens.- The following letter from C. A. Armstrong, City Engineer, was read: "Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: In response to Mr. Kamms questionnaire, RE: S.P. 5502-Trunk Highways 52 & 14 from 4th St. N.W. to Proposed South Junction TH 52 Layout 12-A I am submitting my observations and conclusions rn 332 Record of Official Proceedings of the 'Conimon .Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., October 20, 1959 • OSWALD Pl16 L16NIN0 CO., NEW ULM, MINN. 9101 resulting from the meeting on October 19 with the officials of the Highway Department, _ Bathalomew & Associates, and some of the Property Owners Association. Mr. Kamm's questions are underlined. A: -First -Street -S:W: -Overaass 1. Is -it -feasible? 2. Is -it -not -feasible,--if -not. why? Answer: I do not consider this overpass feasible because the Highway Department has stated that they cannot justify the expense from Highway Funds. It could be constructed, however, if it could be financed, and the agency responsible for its construction was willing to assume also the probable liability of damages to adjacent property from the grade changes it would require. Bi- -Traffic -Proi'ection -Difference. 1. How -come -the traffic -protection �cf- -the Highway Dept: -differs -from -the one submitted, -by -Engineering firms -engaged -by -Miracle Mile -interests,- -or -visa versa? 2. Explain why -figures differ- -on -a laymans -level. Ansewer: The reasons for the difference are -set forth in'the Barthalomew Associates report on page 5 and 6. The actual difference is that Barthalomew Associates predict the traffic volume in 1975 at 10 to 30 percent above those determined by -the Highway Department: The • Barthalomew report also states that the Highway Departments ---"basic traffic assignment seems quite reasonable and, after reviewing it, we are inclined to accept it and have done so for the purpose of this analysis." C: -Second -Street -Pro ect.-poses a -bottleneck: - -Yes -or -No? 1. HighwayDepartment says with -proper -light•s -and markers -it -is =a good plan. 2. Engineering firm employed by Miracle Mile interests say potentially the overpass has -bottleneck features; -at -least -in -the -future: Answer: After listening to both"the Highway Department officials and the Consultants engaged by the property owners, I am convinced that the Highway Departments plan will provide for the traffic at this intersection. The reason that it is not acceptable to the merchants in this area appears to be because it is designed to provide for the normal service that the traffic at this point'would seem to require, tather than the ---"maximum freedom of choice of service to the adjacent area" --the "complete circuity" which they desire and which the Barthalomew plan proposed. In conclusion,•I recommend that the Council approve the Layout and Profile No. 12-A and authorize the approval and signature of the final plans, grades and specifications for its construction when they are prepared. Respectfully, s/C. A. ARMSTRONG City Engineer" Mr. Frank Marzitelli, Deputy State Commissioner of Highways, said that although some of the features requested might be desirable and feasible, his department has to plan for the whole State and have only a certain amount of public funds., He said this was a Federal Aid Project (507. federal aid and 507. state) and that if the two structures requested were built it was doubtful that any Federal Aid would be received and no State funds were available so it would be up to the muAcipality to stand the costs of such structures. After further lengthy discussion Alderman Hanlon introduced the following resolution which was read: "WHEREAS, The Commissioner of Highways has prepared preliminary plans and profile • for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number Seven (7) renumbered as Trunk Highway Number Fourteen (14) within the corporate limits of the City of Rochester from the Jct. 4th Street N.W.-to-proposed South Jct. T.H. 52; and WHEREAS said preliminary plans and profile are on file in the office of the Department of Highways, Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified as Layout 12A and Profile 12A S.P.. 5502 (14-7); and WHEREAS copies of said preliminary plans and profile as so marked, labeled and identified are also on file in the office of the City Clerk; andi WHEREAS the term "said preliminary plans and profile" as hereinafter used in the body of this resolution shall be deemed and intended to mean, refer to, and incorporate the preliminary plans and profile as in the foregoing recitals particularly identified and described; NOW, THEN, -BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary plans and profile for the improve - meet of Trunk Highway Number Seven (7) renumbered Trunk Highway Number Fourteen (14) within the limits of the City of Rochester be and hereby are approved. " BE IT FUR7R ER RESOLVED that this resolution constitutes approval of the final plans and specifications when the same are completed in conformance with said preliminary plans and profile described"above, and that the City Clerk and'Mayor Are'authroized and directed to sign and approve said final plans and specifications when presented by the Commissioner of Highways and certified by the City Engineer to be in substantial con- formance with the said preliminary plans and profile. Record of Official: Proceedings of the Common Council • of the City of Rochester; Minn., October :20, . 1959. "? _Qr7-J1 1 r-I r • 1 1 1 O BWALD PU8LI8NIN8 CD., NEW "14, MINN. 9181 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the elevations and grades as shown on said final plans and specifications are hereby approved and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade,occasioned by the,improvement of said Trunk Highway Number Seven (7) renumbered as Trunk Highway Number Fourteen (14) provided said changes in grade are in conformance with said profile No. 12A and -provided further that the State of Minnesota shall agree to hold the City of Rochester harmless from any and all lawsuits, claims of damages and damages to adjacent property occasioned by said changes in grade or elevation." A motion was then made by Hanlon, seconded by Haas, that the said resolution be adopted as read and upon roll call and all present voting in favor thereof, except Tingley who voted "no", President Kamm declared the said resolution duly passed and adopted. A motion was then made by Hanlon, second by Morris, that the Council consider business other than the call. All voted in favor thereof. Alderman Hanlon then introduced a resd.ution,.amending a resolution adopted by the Common Council on September 21st, 1959 initiating condemnation proceedings to acquire a permanent.easement or right-of-way for street & alley purposes over parts of Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Cooke's Sub-Divisi (changing original property description to eliminate from the proceedings the taking of certain projection of adjoining buildings) which was read. A motion was made by Haas, second by Hanlon, that the said resolution.be adopted.as read and all voting in favor thereof, President Kamm.declared the said resolution duly passed and adopted. . Upon motion by Haas, second by Hanlon, the meeting was adjourned: Ll Cit Clerk L1